The Official UFC Thread!
#1281
11-15-2011, 10:59 AM
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 23,831
#1282
11-15-2011, 11:00 AM
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 23,831
Ultimate fighting championship sues to overturn new york ban on live performance of professional mixed martial arts
UFC Sues to overturn NY Ban on MMA
NEW YORK, NY – NOVEMBER 15, 2011- The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and a group of plaintiffs including fighters, fans, trainers and others involved with Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) announced today that they have filed a lawsuit against New York State officials challenging the constitutionality of the state law banning live professional MMA events and associated activities (the “Ban”). The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenges the Ban for violating numerous provisions of the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Ban infringes upon the rights of the fighters who want to publicly exhibit their skills as professionals and express themselves before a live audience, the rights of fans who would like to experience live professional MMA events, and the rights of those who train, publicize or otherwise advance MMA in New York. Plaintiffs point to the following as evidence of the irrational, unconstitutional nature of the Ban:
• The Ban was originally imposed in 1997, at a time when MMA was unregulated and prohibited in many other states. Today, MMA is a highly-regulated, broadly popular sport, which experts and supporting safety data verify is as safe as or safer than many sports and activities that are legal in New York, including boxing, football and rodeo.
• MMA is widely available on television in New York, and many New Yorkers lawfully train and spar in MMA.
• Live professional MMA can take place in virtually every state except New York.
• The individual martial arts that comprise MMA, including kickboxing, jiu-jitsu, judo, boxing and wrestling, are legal and performed live regularly in New York - it is only their combination, performed live by professionals, that is banned in New York.
“MMA is one of the fastest growing sports in the U.S. and one of the most popular in the world,” said Lorenzo Fertitta, Chairman and CEO of Zuffa LLC, owner of the UFC. “When we acquired the UFC, we went to great lengths to invite regulation and adopt substantial safety measures. MMA is now as safe as or even safer than many other sports and activities sanctioned in New York like boxing, for example, because it allows fighters to honorably tap out and involves far fewer hits. All the disciplines that go into mixed martial arts are performed live in New York; it is only their combination that is illegal. Denying fighters the chance to exhibit their training and skills before a live audience and denying thousands of New Yorkers the ability to watch their favorite fighters perform live is not only an injustice to them, but to the local markets that would reap tremendous economic benefits from hosting competitions. We believe the ban should be eliminated, and look forward to fighting live in New York.”
“It is unfortunate that we were forced to take the step of filing a lawsuit to overturn this senseless law, but the ban on live professional MMA infringes on the rights of countless New Yorkers,” said Barry Friedman, a constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law and co-counsel with Morrison & Foerster LLP for the Plaintiffs. “Despite sincere legislative efforts, the ban remains in place based on a flawed assessment of the sport’s supposedly ’violent message.’ This rationale is a patent violation of the First Amendment. In live events, fighters showcase their talents, communicate their convictions, show respect for their opponents and the art and tradition of MMA, and convey the importance of discipline, training and hard work. They also entertain their fans. Not only does the law prohibit live events, but as it is written it purports to ban other speech including media broadcasts and coverage of professional MMA. It is ironic that New York -- in many ways the home of free expression, the global media, and the art world -- would deny someone his or her fundamental freedom of expression. The Ban is contrary to what New York is all about. There is no legal basis for this unconstitutional ban to persist.”
“Performing MMA live in front of a crowd is an unrivaled experience and allows me to speak to my fans,” said Plaintiff and UFC competitor Brian Stann. “I was attracted to MMA during my time in the Marine Corps, after I returned from my first deployment to Iraq in 2005 and was looking for a path that allowed me to stay motivated, and inspire others, particularly fellow veterans. MMA is a brotherhood that demands respect for your fellow fighters and rewards mental discipline and skill. It has given countless veterans a way to rehabilitate and connect with other military veterans and I am grateful every day for the ability to compete and inspire my fans.”
UFC Sues to overturn NY Ban on MMA
NEW YORK, NY – NOVEMBER 15, 2011- The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and a group of plaintiffs including fighters, fans, trainers and others involved with Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) announced today that they have filed a lawsuit against New York State officials challenging the constitutionality of the state law banning live professional MMA events and associated activities (the “Ban”). The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenges the Ban for violating numerous provisions of the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Ban infringes upon the rights of the fighters who want to publicly exhibit their skills as professionals and express themselves before a live audience, the rights of fans who would like to experience live professional MMA events, and the rights of those who train, publicize or otherwise advance MMA in New York. Plaintiffs point to the following as evidence of the irrational, unconstitutional nature of the Ban:
• The Ban was originally imposed in 1997, at a time when MMA was unregulated and prohibited in many other states. Today, MMA is a highly-regulated, broadly popular sport, which experts and supporting safety data verify is as safe as or safer than many sports and activities that are legal in New York, including boxing, football and rodeo.
• MMA is widely available on television in New York, and many New Yorkers lawfully train and spar in MMA.
• Live professional MMA can take place in virtually every state except New York.
• The individual martial arts that comprise MMA, including kickboxing, jiu-jitsu, judo, boxing and wrestling, are legal and performed live regularly in New York - it is only their combination, performed live by professionals, that is banned in New York.
“MMA is one of the fastest growing sports in the U.S. and one of the most popular in the world,” said Lorenzo Fertitta, Chairman and CEO of Zuffa LLC, owner of the UFC. “When we acquired the UFC, we went to great lengths to invite regulation and adopt substantial safety measures. MMA is now as safe as or even safer than many other sports and activities sanctioned in New York like boxing, for example, because it allows fighters to honorably tap out and involves far fewer hits. All the disciplines that go into mixed martial arts are performed live in New York; it is only their combination that is illegal. Denying fighters the chance to exhibit their training and skills before a live audience and denying thousands of New Yorkers the ability to watch their favorite fighters perform live is not only an injustice to them, but to the local markets that would reap tremendous economic benefits from hosting competitions. We believe the ban should be eliminated, and look forward to fighting live in New York.”
“It is unfortunate that we were forced to take the step of filing a lawsuit to overturn this senseless law, but the ban on live professional MMA infringes on the rights of countless New Yorkers,” said Barry Friedman, a constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law and co-counsel with Morrison & Foerster LLP for the Plaintiffs. “Despite sincere legislative efforts, the ban remains in place based on a flawed assessment of the sport’s supposedly ’violent message.’ This rationale is a patent violation of the First Amendment. In live events, fighters showcase their talents, communicate their convictions, show respect for their opponents and the art and tradition of MMA, and convey the importance of discipline, training and hard work. They also entertain their fans. Not only does the law prohibit live events, but as it is written it purports to ban other speech including media broadcasts and coverage of professional MMA. It is ironic that New York -- in many ways the home of free expression, the global media, and the art world -- would deny someone his or her fundamental freedom of expression. The Ban is contrary to what New York is all about. There is no legal basis for this unconstitutional ban to persist.”
“Performing MMA live in front of a crowd is an unrivaled experience and allows me to speak to my fans,” said Plaintiff and UFC competitor Brian Stann. “I was attracted to MMA during my time in the Marine Corps, after I returned from my first deployment to Iraq in 2005 and was looking for a path that allowed me to stay motivated, and inspire others, particularly fellow veterans. MMA is a brotherhood that demands respect for your fellow fighters and rewards mental discipline and skill. It has given countless veterans a way to rehabilitate and connect with other military veterans and I am grateful every day for the ability to compete and inspire my fans.”
#1283
11-15-2011, 11:33 AM
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 23,831
Lawyer: MMA Ban in New York Violates First Amendement
Lawyer: MMA Ban in New York Violates First Amendement
Zuffa announced on Tuesday morning that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. seeking a declaration that the mixed martial arts ban in New York State violates the First Amendment. You can read the full complaint here.
MMAFighting.com spoke to Barry Friedman, a professor of law at New York University, and one of the lawyers working on the case, about why the complaint was filed and the timeline ahead. You can read our conversation below.
Ariel Helwani: This is a unique case, Barry. Are you aware of any kind of precedence for a case like this?
Barry Friedman: Let me tell you two separate things: the first is, they hadn't gone to court because they really had hoped to work this out in the legislature and did their best to do that, and having gotten nowhere, decided that they would take the next step of going to court. In terms of precedence, there are a lot of First Amendment cases involving sports to the extent that you could make sense of them as a group. They tend to distinguish between the question of whether practicing a sport, engaging in a sport, like at the gym, is protected versus doing it in front of an audience, in front of a crowd. And that's our claim. It's the performance before a live audience. That's the only thing that the state seems to think is banned in New York. As you no doubt know, there are countless MMA gyms in the city, and there are lots of people engaging in it. There are millions who watch on TV. What's banned is having a match in Madison Square Garden.
When did Zuffa decide that this would be the best course of action?
The UFC is continuing its legislative efforts -- there's no question about that. They're ongoing at the same that we filed the lawsuit. Just to give you a sense of our situation in New York, it's passed our State Senate a couple of times, it's passed through some of the relevant committees in the Assembly or House. There was a petition last year with almost the majority of Assembly members saying that they would support repealing the ban. We've had at least one Governor say he would support repealing the ban. So we've just been in this weird political situation here where we can't get it up for a vote. So at that point, not unlike a lot of other situations, when you can't recourse in the legislature, the courts are often where you go.
If Zuffa wins this lawsuit, does that mean the ban is lifted?
Yes. To be slightly more precise, there are a variety of claims and they may have a different impact, but in general, the correct answer is if we prevail the ban is lifted. In fact, in theory, the day we win, there could be a match here in New York.
Zuffa has talked about how the Culinary Union in Nevada is largely behind the situation in New York. Will you look to expose that situation in this case?
It doesn't play any role in the lawsuit. The lawsuit only asks the question, is the New York law consistent with the Constitution? When you're answering that question, you have to answer a variety of questions: for example, the First Amendment claim, the central claim here, asks is what the UFC fighters are doing is expressive? And if it is, and we believe strongly that it is, then the state has a very high burden of showing why they have to ban it completely. Remember, it's not like they regulated it and we're complaining about a regulation -- they've banned it completely. You can't do that with speech without a really, really good reason. So that's the kind of question that you ask. Is it expressive? Does the state have a reason for banning it? Is that reason acceptable?
As you may know, there are two reasons that the state has given for banning mixed martial arts: one is that it's not safe, and the other is that it sends a bad, violent message. We don't think that's the message. When you read our complaint, and I hope you do, you'll see that there are fighters and fans talking about all the messages that fighting does send other than violence: things like discipline, hard work, strength, courage, respect for your opponents. But even if the whole reason that it was banned was violence, that still violates the Constitution.
You might have heard about this, the Supreme Court had a case last year involving violent video games being sold to minors in California, and the Court struck down that law, saying you can't ban violence as a message. So even if that were true, that would not be legitimate because we don't think that's the message. And then if it's safety -- remember, this law was passed a long time before there were unified rules or any of that -- we don't think the sport was so dangerous back then -- there was a lot of hype -- but today it's obviously a complete different thing and there's lots of data that shows that mixed martial arts is safer than football, boxing, ice hockey, downhill skiing, equestrian sports.
What kind of timeline are we looking at here? How quickly can the case move along?
Not quickly. The judicial process can be slow. Typically, it would take the state a month or so just to respond, and we would have some initial briefing. Typically what happens in a case like this is that the defendants file a motion to dismiss, which says, Look, even if we accept it's true, everything that they've said in their complaint, we still win on the law. So usually that gets litigated and it takes a while. At some point in there, the party starts to take discovery, which means they do depositions and gather evidence that they want to present in court, and that takes a while. So it's not the kind of thing that happens over night.
Have you ever worked on a case like this?
I don't know what "like this" means. I've worked on lots of cases. I've done First Amendment cases; I've never represented a sports team or athlete. If you look at the complaint, we're also representing fans and gym owners. I've done a lot of constitutional cases.
Several big name fighters, such as Jon Jones and Frankie Edgar, are singled out as plaintiffs in the complaint. Why?
That's a hard question to answer for a lot of reasons, including we could have had a lot more plaintiffs, so at some level we just tried to pick a representative group. We think they're representative in a lot of different ways. Some of them are New Yorkers or in the vicinity. A lot of the plaintiffs who are not champion fighters are New Yorkers, also amateur fighters, fans, gym owners, and so we just tried to get a sample of the many people who might want to be involved. A lot of these plaintiffs just said to us, I just want to be part of history.
Lawyer: MMA Ban in New York Violates First Amendement
Zuffa announced on Tuesday morning that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. seeking a declaration that the mixed martial arts ban in New York State violates the First Amendment. You can read the full complaint here.
MMAFighting.com spoke to Barry Friedman, a professor of law at New York University, and one of the lawyers working on the case, about why the complaint was filed and the timeline ahead. You can read our conversation below.
Ariel Helwani: This is a unique case, Barry. Are you aware of any kind of precedence for a case like this?
Barry Friedman: Let me tell you two separate things: the first is, they hadn't gone to court because they really had hoped to work this out in the legislature and did their best to do that, and having gotten nowhere, decided that they would take the next step of going to court. In terms of precedence, there are a lot of First Amendment cases involving sports to the extent that you could make sense of them as a group. They tend to distinguish between the question of whether practicing a sport, engaging in a sport, like at the gym, is protected versus doing it in front of an audience, in front of a crowd. And that's our claim. It's the performance before a live audience. That's the only thing that the state seems to think is banned in New York. As you no doubt know, there are countless MMA gyms in the city, and there are lots of people engaging in it. There are millions who watch on TV. What's banned is having a match in Madison Square Garden.
When did Zuffa decide that this would be the best course of action?
The UFC is continuing its legislative efforts -- there's no question about that. They're ongoing at the same that we filed the lawsuit. Just to give you a sense of our situation in New York, it's passed our State Senate a couple of times, it's passed through some of the relevant committees in the Assembly or House. There was a petition last year with almost the majority of Assembly members saying that they would support repealing the ban. We've had at least one Governor say he would support repealing the ban. So we've just been in this weird political situation here where we can't get it up for a vote. So at that point, not unlike a lot of other situations, when you can't recourse in the legislature, the courts are often where you go.
If Zuffa wins this lawsuit, does that mean the ban is lifted?
Yes. To be slightly more precise, there are a variety of claims and they may have a different impact, but in general, the correct answer is if we prevail the ban is lifted. In fact, in theory, the day we win, there could be a match here in New York.
Zuffa has talked about how the Culinary Union in Nevada is largely behind the situation in New York. Will you look to expose that situation in this case?
It doesn't play any role in the lawsuit. The lawsuit only asks the question, is the New York law consistent with the Constitution? When you're answering that question, you have to answer a variety of questions: for example, the First Amendment claim, the central claim here, asks is what the UFC fighters are doing is expressive? And if it is, and we believe strongly that it is, then the state has a very high burden of showing why they have to ban it completely. Remember, it's not like they regulated it and we're complaining about a regulation -- they've banned it completely. You can't do that with speech without a really, really good reason. So that's the kind of question that you ask. Is it expressive? Does the state have a reason for banning it? Is that reason acceptable?
As you may know, there are two reasons that the state has given for banning mixed martial arts: one is that it's not safe, and the other is that it sends a bad, violent message. We don't think that's the message. When you read our complaint, and I hope you do, you'll see that there are fighters and fans talking about all the messages that fighting does send other than violence: things like discipline, hard work, strength, courage, respect for your opponents. But even if the whole reason that it was banned was violence, that still violates the Constitution.
You might have heard about this, the Supreme Court had a case last year involving violent video games being sold to minors in California, and the Court struck down that law, saying you can't ban violence as a message. So even if that were true, that would not be legitimate because we don't think that's the message. And then if it's safety -- remember, this law was passed a long time before there were unified rules or any of that -- we don't think the sport was so dangerous back then -- there was a lot of hype -- but today it's obviously a complete different thing and there's lots of data that shows that mixed martial arts is safer than football, boxing, ice hockey, downhill skiing, equestrian sports.
What kind of timeline are we looking at here? How quickly can the case move along?
Not quickly. The judicial process can be slow. Typically, it would take the state a month or so just to respond, and we would have some initial briefing. Typically what happens in a case like this is that the defendants file a motion to dismiss, which says, Look, even if we accept it's true, everything that they've said in their complaint, we still win on the law. So usually that gets litigated and it takes a while. At some point in there, the party starts to take discovery, which means they do depositions and gather evidence that they want to present in court, and that takes a while. So it's not the kind of thing that happens over night.
Have you ever worked on a case like this?
I don't know what "like this" means. I've worked on lots of cases. I've done First Amendment cases; I've never represented a sports team or athlete. If you look at the complaint, we're also representing fans and gym owners. I've done a lot of constitutional cases.
Several big name fighters, such as Jon Jones and Frankie Edgar, are singled out as plaintiffs in the complaint. Why?
That's a hard question to answer for a lot of reasons, including we could have had a lot more plaintiffs, so at some level we just tried to pick a representative group. We think they're representative in a lot of different ways. Some of them are New Yorkers or in the vicinity. A lot of the plaintiffs who are not champion fighters are New Yorkers, also amateur fighters, fans, gym owners, and so we just tried to get a sample of the many people who might want to be involved. A lot of these plaintiffs just said to us, I just want to be part of history.
#1284
11-15-2011, 11:33 AM
Reem VS Lesnar is going to be a race. If Reem sticks Brock with a hard combo on the feet and follows through, or if Brock takes Reem down and traps him like he did Mir, it'll end depending on which of these things happens first. Brock doesn't have a tough enough head to take hard shots, but his wrestling is better than Reem's. If I were Reem, I'd keep distance, stuff TD's and counter immediately with downward hooks to the side of the head as Brock's coming back up, stun him and drive forward into G&P and finish in Rd 1. The longer Reem lets the fight go, the more Brock has a chance to figure him out and create an opening for the takedown.
#1285
11-15-2011, 06:37 PM
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 23,831
#1286
11-16-2011, 12:23 AM
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 23,831
#1287
11-16-2011, 06:02 PM
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 23,831
UFC’s early 2012 sched filling up, may include UFC on Fox 2 in Chicago on Jan. 28
UFC’s early 2012 sched filling up, may include UFC on Fox 2 in Chicago on Jan. 28 - Cagewriter - UFC Blog - Yahoo! Sports
"The UFC isn't slowing down in 2012, in fact it's coming out the gates hard in January. If you're looking for a weekend off, good luck.
The UFC is looking at making its debut on FX on Friday Jan. 20 with Ultimate Fight Night 26 in Nashville.
Multiple sources confirm that Jan. 28 is the target for UFC on Fox 2 in Chicago at the United Center. That'll be followed by the Georges St-Pierre-Nick Diaz fight on Super Saturday in Las Vegas on Feb. 4.
Don't forget the UFC is scheduled to hit Brazil on Jan. 14 with its Rio de Janeiro fight card. That's four straight weeks of UFC fights until a short break before UFC 144 in Japan.
The desired fight for UFC on Fox 2 is for Anderson Silva defend his UFC middleweight belt against Chael Sonnen. Nothing is official with Silva battling shoulder issues.
UFC.com announced today that Pat Barry vs. Christian Morecraft and Duane Ludwig taking on Josh Neer are the first two fights slated for the FX card.
Along with Frank Edgar defending his lightweight title against Ben Henderson, the Japan card will feature tilts pitting Yoshihiro Akiyama and Jake Shields, and Anthony Pettis against Joe Lauzon."
UFC’s early 2012 sched filling up, may include UFC on Fox 2 in Chicago on Jan. 28 - Cagewriter - UFC Blog - Yahoo! Sports
"The UFC isn't slowing down in 2012, in fact it's coming out the gates hard in January. If you're looking for a weekend off, good luck.
The UFC is looking at making its debut on FX on Friday Jan. 20 with Ultimate Fight Night 26 in Nashville.
Multiple sources confirm that Jan. 28 is the target for UFC on Fox 2 in Chicago at the United Center. That'll be followed by the Georges St-Pierre-Nick Diaz fight on Super Saturday in Las Vegas on Feb. 4.
Don't forget the UFC is scheduled to hit Brazil on Jan. 14 with its Rio de Janeiro fight card. That's four straight weeks of UFC fights until a short break before UFC 144 in Japan.
The desired fight for UFC on Fox 2 is for Anderson Silva defend his UFC middleweight belt against Chael Sonnen. Nothing is official with Silva battling shoulder issues.
UFC.com announced today that Pat Barry vs. Christian Morecraft and Duane Ludwig taking on Josh Neer are the first two fights slated for the FX card.
Along with Frank Edgar defending his lightweight title against Ben Henderson, the Japan card will feature tilts pitting Yoshihiro Akiyama and Jake Shields, and Anthony Pettis against Joe Lauzon."
#1289
11-16-2011, 07:43 PM
That's great stuff. Chael's such a tool. The interviewer was way over his head, too. Bad combination.
#1290
11-16-2011, 08:18 PM
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 23,831
The dude...Micheal Landsberg wtv...hes a wierdo...i see his interviews everyday...hes kinda a big deal on TSN here in Canada...hes flaky...Dana even ribs into him...calls him a Tranny Vampire lol